Talk:Children in the military

Bias

The lead is meant to be a summary of the body of the text. Currently it put forwards lots of statements that are not a summary of the body of the text but instead presents a biased point of view.

This article has an implicit bias which implies that "child soldiers bad". While this may be true it is a breach of WP:POV. Here are some examples:

• "some are recruited by force while others choose to join up, often to escape poverty or because they expect military life to offer a rite of passage to maturity." Most people have jobs "to escape poverty" and the second motive is pure speculation. They may join for a myriad of other reasons, eg to gain a trade such as an aircraft fitter, to see the world, for the adventure, or family tradition (see the members of the British Royal family), etc etc. Also the reasons for joining vary from army to army. One may join the British Armed forces to see the world, that is not a motivation to join the one does Swiss army. In neutral text "Some are conscripted others volunteer (in many states volunteers must have permission from their parents or legal guardians)." The source used for this only covers 9 countries of which only one (the UK) is representative of Europe, there are none from the Orient or North America. So the sentence extrapolation from a limited survey of less than 10% of all state armies, to make a universal statement of fact.
• "Child recruits who survive armed conflict frequently" the words "frequently" is a weasel word, either there is a statistic (in which case use it eg "According to various studies 60%...") or more likely "frequently" is being used instead of "may" to imply that "most" children suffer.
• "enlistment of adolescent children" The US army (the subject of the research by the source) does not recruit non-adolescent children. The sentence is generalising from a survey of US military not all militarises. Worse the abstract of the source (Ursano et al, 2016), does not support the sentence. If I have misread that source then which sentence supports the statement? What is worse from the sources online and the titles of the others not one supports the sentence for example the title of one "Violent offending by UK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: a data linkage cohort study" clearly excludes children as the UK does not deploy under 18s to conflict areas. Further the sentence is extrapolating a basic truth from as number of studies about two armies, it does not mention any navy surveys or airforce surveys, or the vast majority of the world's other militaries.
• "A number of treaties have tried to limit" this reads like "he tried to give up alcohol [,but failed]" otherwise one would write "he gave up alcohol". Yet the next sentence contradicts it "these agreements have helped to reduce child recruitment," so have they reduced it or have they tried to reduce it or is there no conclusive evidence one way or the other? The first sentence leans one way and so is biased.
• "but the practice remains widespread and children continue to participate in hostilities around the world" this is not true on most continents of the world and in most countries children do not participate in armed conflict or even hostilities. The cited source does not support it.
• "Some powerful nations" what is a "powerful nation"? The us of "Some" is a breach of WP:WEASEL.

All those are taken from the lead. There are more in the body of the text, but it is enough to demonstrates the point that the article has a bias.

-- PBS (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi PBS. Thanks for looking through the lead so carefully. I hope that any corrections needed can be achieved by adding qualifying remarks where necessary. I will respond to your points in below.

• "some are recruited by force while others choose to join up, often to escape poverty or because they expect military life to offer a rite of passage to maturity." Most people have jobs "to escape poverty" and the second motive is pure speculation.

Both these statements are evidenced in the sources given, particularly Brett & Specht. The relationship between poverty and enlistment is well established. I can add one or two further sources though.

They may join for a myriad of other reasons, eg to gain a trade such as an aircraft fitter, to see the world, for the adventure, or family tradition (see the members of the British Royal family), etc etc. Also the reasons for joining vary from army to army. One may join the British Armed forces to see the world, that is not a motivation to join the one does Swiss army.

I agree - it would be worth adding this if you have a source for it.

In neutral text "Some are conscripted others volunteer (in many states volunteers must have permission from their parents or legal guardians)." The source used for this only covers 9 countries of which only one (the UK) is representative of Europe, there are none from the Orient or North America. So the sentence extrapolation from a limited survey of less than 10% of all state armies, to make a universal statement of fact.

I can't find this text. If you can point it out to, I can add a source that contains the enlistment/conscription policies for all states.

• "Child recruits who survive armed conflict frequently" the words "frequently" is a weasel word, either there is a statistic (in which case use it eg "According to various studies 60%...") or more likely "frequently" is being used instead of "may" to imply that "most" children suffer.

I think it's ok to use frequently where there is evidence for it that falls short of a statistical value, as in this case. The body of the article does give statistics for this, but that would be too much information for the lead, I think.

• "enlistment of adolescent children" The US army (the subject of the research by the source) does not recruit non-adolescent children.

It does. The US army recruits from age 17. A child is any person under the age of 18.

The sentence is generalising from a survey of US military not all militarises.

Fair enough - I can make that specific.

Worse the abstract of the source (Ursano et al, 2016), does not support the sentence.

Perhaps this is not as clear in the lead as in the main article. The source shows that US army training (before personnel are sent to war) is associated with an elevated rate of attempted suicide. That finding is not age-specific, but trainees include 17-year-olds, who may then be deployed once they turn 18. So this source is relevant here.

If I have misread that source then which sentence supports the statement? What is worse from the sources online and the titles of the others not one supports the sentence for example the title of one "Violent offending by UK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: a data linkage cohort study" clearly excludes children as the UK does not deploy under 18s to conflict areas.

In that respect, the title of the source is misleading. That source shows that the rate of violent offending increases after enlistment in the UK armed forces, before personnel are sent to war. Again, it's not age-specific, but it applies to the whole enlistment cohort, including those age 16 and 17.

Further the sentence is extrapolating a basic truth from as number of studies about two armies, it does not mention any navy surveys or airforce surveys, or the vast majority of the world's other militaries.

Agreed - I can edit it to show it applies to research in the UK and US.

• "A number of treaties have tried to limit" this reads like "he tried to give up alcohol [,but failed]" otherwise one would write "he gave up alcohol". Yet the next sentence contradicts it "these agreements have helped to reduce child recruitment," so have they reduced it or have they tried to reduce it or is there no conclusive evidence one way or the other? The first sentence leans one way and so is biased.

I can make this clearer. The point is that the treaties have been partially effective.

• "but the practice remains widespread and children continue to participate in hostilities around the world" this is not true on most continents of the world and in most countries children do not participate in armed conflict or even hostilities. The cited source does not support it.

Children do continue to participate in hostilities around the world, as is shown in the two supporting sources. I will add a third, which is more up to date.

• "Some powerful nations" what is a "powerful nation"? The us of "Some" is a breach of WP:WEASEL.

I can make the definition of "powerful" more specific. I don't think "some" is out of place though.

I'll make these changes now. It would be good to know if you think anything else needs changing in the article.

Fugitivedave (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

In the Red Army during the Second World War there were "sons of the regiments" - usually orphans, picked up by soldiers on the roads of war. In addition, Soviet teenagers fought in partisan detachments, participated in underground organizations in the occupied territories. Of the young partisans, Marat Kazei, Volodya Dubinin and Valya Kotik are especially famous (all of them were 13-14 years old at the time of their death). For military merit, tens of thousands of children were awarded orders and medals [source not specified 1095 days]. Many young participants in the war died in battle or were executed by the invaders. The monument to the children - participants in the defense of Leningrad - was erected on Nepokorennykh Avenue not far from the Piskarevsky memorial cemetery. Цйфыву (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There's some support for a move but not to any particular title, even nom seems to have withdrawn the RM. Andrewa (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Children in the military → Military use of children – Revert the move of November 2017 requested by Gaioa. The reason is that this article covers more than "Children in the military" it also covers the exploitation of children by the military as explained in the lead sentence "Children may be trained and used for combat, assigned to support roles such as porters or messengers, or used for tactical advantage as human shields or for political advantage in propaganda." with more details in the body of the text. PBS (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• An example is the TV display of Saddam Hussein handling (literally) of the British boy Stuart Lockwood in 1990 that had the complete opposite of the effect he had hoped to create. -- PBS (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose by mover - I changed the title to make it broader and to signify that the topic of the article is not only exploitation. I do not in any way deny that children have been repeatedly enslaved and mistreated by armed forces across the world, but that makes no difference in significance to the current article title. The current title signifies "presence of children in military contexts, regardless of status", whilst the original title signified "slavery and exploitation of children for military applications, and nothing more".
  The current article title is broader and the previous was less accurate, whereas OP seems to think the opposite. But the world "in" do not in any way deny exploitation. Gaioa (t,c,l) 05:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  How is the title "in the military" broader? How does the current title cover issues such as Lockwood? You write that the title "Military use of children" covers "slavery and exploitation of children for military applications, and nothing more". How do you come to that conclusion and how does the title "Children in the military" differs from that? -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the reasons Gaioa has given, I think the rationale for the current title is clearer, and it also sits well with another page, 'Women in the military'.Fugitivedave (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  @Fugitivedave Unlike women, who may or may not be in the military through the decisions made by the government of a state, there is an international prohibition against using children under the age of 15 in the military. How do you think that children in the military is comparable with "women in the military"? -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The prohibition is of children under the age 16 (among signatories of the OPAC treaty, which is most of the world now). To my mind, I don't think the prohibition on some children joining the military has a bearing on whether 'Children in the military' is a good title or not. I think there's a case for 'Military use of children' too, but I think the current title is the most neutral of the suggestions I've seen so far, and reflects the article content well, so I still don't think it should be changed. Fugitivedave (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral. The "in the military" phrasing is poor, implying a specific military (the reader is apt to assume that of their own nation). It's just poor communication, and poor conceptualization. Outside of a particular jurisdiction, there is no such thing as "the" military. However, the proposed title doesn't seem to cover the scope of the article's content, not quite.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Children rioters during Hong Kong independence movement

Should this article mention children fighters enlisted by the Hong Kong independence movement?

In my opinion, no. These are child protesters, who may commit acts of violence but are not in the military or a military organisation. Fugitivedave (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Child Soldiers

If you are interested in child soldiers you should read the book called A Child Soldier by Emmanuel Jal. It has some very useful information in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.6.228 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Bias, palestine

In the first paragraph on the Palestine section, a quote is used where palestintianian children who threw stones and molotov cocktails at IDF soldiers during the first intifada are misrepresented as child-soliders. the first intifada was not a war, but an uprising in response to decades of IDF military occupation of the palestinian terrories, and the second-class citizenship status of palestinians living in israel. The children were not soldiers, but rather part of the greater population who participated in the uprising (which, had far greater casualities on the palestinian side). The quote is therefore not realiable, and an appropriate human rights organization should instead be used as a source.

Theoisnotalive (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)